Roundtables | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The NRC must ensure current levels of safety and performance as nuclear fleet expands

Anthony R. Pietrangelo — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:30:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The future of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is well-positioned to effectively take on new plant licensing and maintain its oversight of operating plants and its other responsibilities. Organizationally, the NRC created the Office of New Reactors in late 2006--separate from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation--to ensure that its primary responsibility of regulating operating plants wasn't distracted by new plant licensing.

Biosecurity solutions beyond the BWC

Ralf Trapp — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:42:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The expanding range of biowarfare threats

I agree with the other panelists that an international institution is needed to manage biorisks. The current mechanism under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC), which combines a work program with annual meetings of the States Parties, at expert as well as diplomatic levels, and which is supported by a small Implementation Support Unit (ISU) set up in 2007 at the U.N. Secretariat, cannot provide the necessary institutional structure to seriously address these risks at the international level.

NRC should allow the public to fairly participate in its licensing hearings

Victor Gilinsky — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:53:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The future of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Let's talk about something no one is happy with--citizen and state participation in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing hearings on nuclear plants and facilities. The industry and commission's view is that those who are flat out opposed should express themselves somewhere else, instead of tying up NRC hearings with safety issues best left to government experts. But because of federal preemption of safety regulation, states have no say in these matters and there is no somewhere else.

Biosecurity networks are lacking compared to multilateral institutions

Alan Pearson — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:58:30 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The expanding range of biowarfare threats

Both Jonathan Tucker and Pal Aas argue that we need an international organization devoted to managing the risks associated with biotechnology. According to Tucker, the organization would act to coordinate global action to mitigate biological risks, including establishing and enforcing minimum global standards for the safe and secure handling of dangerous pathogens and the oversight of dual-use research, assisting developing countries in building capacity to implement these standards, and more generally, bolstering the norm against the hostile use of biology.

Improved regulation has been good for the nuclear industry and public safety

Andrew C. Kadak — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The future of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

We have not yet discussed how U.S. utilities dramatically improved the performance of their nuclear plants in the last 10 years, and the role, if any, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) played in this improvement.

Current regulatory discussions could help govern geoengineering research

Dan Whaley — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:57:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: Has the time come for geoengineering?

All geoengineering techniques raise some common (and complicated) questions: Should legitimate research activities continue? Should experimental as well as theoretical research take place? Who decides whether an experiment or project can go forward? Are people concerned about geoengineering because they fear that the research might be harmful, or because they're worried that the knowledge gained might be dangerous? Are science and business mutually exclusive activities?

A new international biorisks organization is needed to ensure security

Pal Aas — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:53:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The expanding range of biowarfare threats

Ralf Trapp clarified my concerns and points to the core of the problem: determining what chemicals are for law enforcement and which legal interpretations States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) will accept?

The NRC needs its own oversight

David Lochbaum — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:33:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The future of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

A common factor that differentiates top performing from underperforming nuclear power plants is the health of their corrective action programs (CAPs). By law, plant owners must have such programs in place that find and fix problems in a timely manner. This regulation recognizes that complex industrial sites such as nuclear plants experience everything from equipment failure to human error. CAPs provide for these realities while protecting against problems, either individually or collectively, that compromise safety margins.

Let's investigate geoengineering impartially

Ken Caldeira — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:46:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: Has the time come for geoengineering?

Alan Robock suggests that I must respond to the "totality" of his argument--that it's not enough to pick off his 20 theses one-by-one, as if the "totality" of his position is somehow more than the sum of its parts.

Greater transparency and management techniques will instill public confidence in the NRC

Anthony R. Pietrangelo — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:21:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The future of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The contributors to this roundtable have noted the challenges that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) faces now and in the future. To successfully address these challenges, I believe there are three key areas that warrant attention--knowledge management, organizational effectiveness, and transparency of the commission's activities.

Defining legal boundaries for incapacitating weapons

Ralf Trapp — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:31:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The expanding range of biowarfare threats

Pal Aas queried my statement that the issue of incapacitants is not primarily about new science but about legal boundaries. Let me clarify what I meant:

Pro-industry priorities derail NRC's public-safety mission

Victor Gilinsky — Fri, 30 May 2008 12:57:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The future of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) problems lie in the priorities at the top. The overriding priority--evident from commission pronouncements and actions--is to facilitate a major expansion, or "renaissance," of nuclear power. That's okay elsewhere in the federal government, but not at the NRC because it gets in the way of public safety and conducting fair proceedings.

Geoengineering shouldn't distract from investing in emissions reduction

Alan Robock — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:07:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: Has the time come for geoengineering?

Thanks to my colleagues for their thoughtful responses. Geoengineering may indeed prove necessary, temporarily, if the benefits of geoengineering outweigh the negative consequences, and we all agree that much more research is needed to understand the costs, benefits, and potential harm of different scenarios. We also agree that if geoengineering is ever implemented, it must be geoengineering plus mitigation, and never geoengineering instead of mitigation.

Good safety regulation isn't a partisan political issue

Andrew C. Kadak — Thu, 29 May 2008 11:56:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The future of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

It appears there are misconceptions about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) performance depending upon where you stand. David Lochbaum believes that its regulations are fine but not well enforced. He cites dissatisfaction with the NRC from "both sides" not as a sign of fairness but rather incompetence. Victor Gilinsky challenges this notion, believing that NRC staff is highly competent and professional but not allowed to do its jobs by the commissioners.

Managing biorisks: The need for international solutions

Jonathan B. Tucker — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:23:23 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The expanding range of biowarfare threats

It's clear from this roundtable discussion that recent advances in biotechnology are outstripping the legal and normative bulwarks designed to prevent the misuse of the life sciences for hostile purposes. The challenge of managing biorisks is complicated by the fact that the relevant technologies are diffusing globally and are driven primarily by innovation in the private sector.

Broader issues than incapacitants are at stake

Alan Pearson — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:04:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The expanding range of biowarfare threats

My concern with Jonathan Tucker's proposal to establish a new subcategory for declaring "other chemical production facilities" that manufacture peptides is not that it would not cover all incapacitating agents; it is that it would not even cover most.

Low-intensity geoengineering should be seriously considered

Tom M. L. Wigley — Wed, 21 May 2008 11:13:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: Has the time come for geoengineering?

My comments are restricted to the type of geoengineering that employs injecting aerosols or aerosol precursors into the stratosphere. This is the primary focus of Alan Robock's article, wherein about half of his arguments against employing this type of geoengineering are related to possible detrimental environmental side effects. Our knowledge of these side effects is still rudimentary.

Priorities for improving the chemical weapons treaty

Pal Aas — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:27:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The expanding range of biowarfare threats

Some States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) are concerned about limiting the development and possible use of incapacitants for law enforcement. This was clear during the negotiations of the CWC. Other countries would like to have the right to produce any chemical, drug, or other agent for law enforcement purposes. Such agents could have several effects on humans, including altering brain function.

Consistent criticism from all sides proves that the NRC isn't a good regulator

David Lochbaum — Thu, 15 May 2008 09:23:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: The future of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Andy Kadak raises a valid point about Davis-Besse's near miss resulting from a major breakdown not only at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) but also at the plant operator FirstEnergy and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). INPO, formed by the industry in response to Three Mile Island, seeks to hold plant owners to standards considerably higher than NRC regulations. Any time a nuclear plant such as Davis-Besse falls below NRC regulations, it first falls below INPO standards.

Geoengineering could buy the time needed to develop a sustainable energy economy

Dan Whaley — Tue, 13 May 2008 10:26:00 -0600

Roundtable Topic: Has the time come for geoengineering?

Although Alan Robock's "20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea" raises legitimate questions, it seems to argue against implementation rather than against studying the underlying science. Few people are actively advocating for immediate, full-scale implementation of geoengineering techniques as a means of addressing climate change.